Two liver journals have retracted articles from a group of Irani researchers who published similar — but not quite identical — versions of the same paper some months apart.
A retraction notice in the Journal of Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases — which bills itself as the “Official Journal of the Romanian Societies of Gastroenterology” — explains what happened: Continue reading Crise de foie: Liver journals retract duplicate biomarker pubs
A while back (last June, to be precise), we wrote about a group of Japanese endocrinologists who found a creative way to up their citation counts using duplicate publication. At the time, the researchers were docked a 2004 paper in the Journal of Steroid Biochemistry & Molecular Biology that had self-plagiarized extensively from a 2003 article in Cell.
Well, skeptics of this new math take heart: The group’s publication total has fallen yet again. Turns out that 2003 paper — which has been cited 160 times, up from 144 when we checked last year, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge — wasn’t quite up to snuff, either.
According to the retraction notice for the article, “The Chromatin-Remodeling Complex WINAC Targets a Nuclear Receptor to Promoters and Is Impaired in Williams Syndrome:” Continue reading Cell paper, once plagiarized, pulled for dodgy figures
Plagiarism is a frequent reason for retraction. Today, we’re pleased to present a guest post by Marya Zilberberg, a physician health services researcher and faculty member at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst School of Public Health and Health Sciences. In this post, she describes what it’s like to find out one of your papers has been plagiarized — and how to get satisfaction. Well, sort of.
Right or wrong, peer-reviewed publications in my trade are academic currency. They provide name recognition, invitations to review, edit and speak, and in general make you feel like a part of the “in-crowd.” Of course the most important metric that publications feed are the infamous h-index, which measures how “influential” your studies are by the number of citations they engender. So, like any other artificial grade, it makes sense to engage in intermittent care and watering of your h-index, and mine is pretty good for where I am in my career. Little did I realize that there is an even more important impact metric than the h-index: plagiarism.
Yes, plagiarism. Let me explain. Continue reading How does it feel to have your scientific paper plagiarized? And what can you do about it?
An ecology researcher in the Congo has found himself at the center of a plagiarism scandal that has felled seven of his papers.
As Science reports today, Serge Valentin Pangou’s work began unraveling in August 2011 after Wageningen University ecologist Patrick Jansen thought a paper he’d been asked to review for the International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation seemed familiar — because he’d written many of the same words in a 2007 paper in Conservation Biology. He ran the manuscript through the plagiarism detection software Turnitin, and sure enough, it was about 90% identical.
Unfortunately for Pangou, Jansen’s co-author on the Conservation Biology paper was Pierre-Michel Forget, whose father, as Science notes, “was a well-known private detective in France.” Forget and Jansen took a careful look at a number of Pangou’s papers, Continue reading Plagiarism leads to seven retractions (and counting) in the conservation literature
The author of a controversial and now-retracted paper questioning the science of climate change has been reprimanded by his university for plagiarism. According to USA Today’s Dan Vergano, who broke the news:
[Edward] Wegman was the senior author of a 2006 report to Congress that criticized climate scientists as excessively collaborative, and found fault with a statistical technique used in two climate studies. Portions of the report analysis were published in the journal, Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, in a 2008 study.
University of Massachusetts professor Raymond Bradley filed a complaint against Wegman in 2010, noting that portions of the report and the CSDA study appeared lifted from one of his textbooks and from other sources, including Wikipedia. CSDA later retracted the study, noting the plagiarism, last year.
Here’s the explicit retraction notice: Continue reading Climate science critic Wegman reprimanded by one university committee while another finds no misconduct
Earlier this month, we highlighted the concerns of the editors of the ACS Nano journal about self-plagiarism, otherwise known as duplication. The editor of the American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR) — that’s radiology, for the uninitiated — has similar concerns, but about plagiarism of others’ work.
In an editorial published in the journal’s January issue, Thomas Berquist notes:
Preliminary data including all article types accepted by AJR show that the amount of duplication varies significantly with different article types. For example, duplication in Original Research articles may be up to 58% and in Memorials, 23%. That is not to say that all duplications are significant or deliberate. For example, most computer software packages pick up words that are the same in a given sentence, pulse sequences that vary with vendors, and other similarities that may be appropriately referenced or quoted.
The ORI, Berquist notes, “has reported that up to 25% of their misconduct allegations involve plagiarism.” So how can authors avoid it? Continue reading How to avoid retractions for plagiarism: Advice from a radiology journal editor (and arXiv)
Safety science might not be the most crowded field, nor its eponymous journal the title on every marquee, but here’s a general rule for would-be plagiarists even in relatively obscure publications: Avoid lifting text from government reports and other publicly available references. (Well, don’t plagiarize at all, but you know what we mean.)
Consider: The journal Safety Science is retracting a 2011 paper whose authors evidently failed to adhere to that principle. Here’s the notice for the article, “Agent-based simulation of fire emergency evacuation with fire and human interaction model,” by Yang Peizhong, Wang Xin and Liu Tao, of Shanghai Jiaotong University: Continue reading Plagiarism burns authors of fire safety paper
A cardinal (if oft-broken) rule of headline writing is to avoid the use of question marks. We think it’s particularly important to do so when the potential for ironic misadventure lurks.
To wit: The Journal of Clinical Pathology (JCP) has withdrawn/retracted a 2008 paper by a group of Indian authors (from the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, at Deemed University) whose cliff-hanging title asks the question “Tracking the footprints of the rabies virus: are we any closer to decoding this elusive virus?” Continue reading Rabies paper retracted for plagiarism, and more from the Journal of Clinical Pathology
Earlier this year we reported on the case of Bernardino Saccomanni, an apparently shameless plagiarist with a fondness for publishing in the orthopedics literature.
Somehow, we’re not surprised to learn that Saccomanni may not have been totally above board in other ways, too.
According to Robert Lindsay, editor of Osteoporosis International, whose journal has retracted one of Saccomanni’s plagiarized manuscripts, the researcher’s stated affiliation on several recent papers — Gabriele D’ Annunzio University Chieti — had long ago severed ties with him: Continue reading Orthopedics plagiarist may have lied about affiliation
In two unrelated cases, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has sanctioned a grad student and a pair of colleagues, one of whom plagiarized and the other allowed the intellectual theft to go unchecked.
We think the handling of these cases — both first noted briefly by The Chronicle of Higher Education — is worth noting.
Continue reading ORI roundup: Former SUNY grad student, two Kansas U researchers hit with sanctions